User talk:Valereee

Need help and don't know where to find it? Help!

non-regulars answering edit requests at articles that have plenty of regulars

Copy-paste from Talk:Killing of George Floyd

EEng wrote:

• (Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.
• (Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.
• (Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.

Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP.

I really like 2+3, but 1+3 might be an easier sell. An added benefit is that this represents lessening the burden on editors patrolling requested edits.

Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests? It's possible the regulars at an article could be owny enough that they just mark all requested changes as answered/not done. Right now they'd have to answer those requests within minutes to ensure no fresh set of eyes shows up. Changing it to at least Z days might be seen as a downside? —valereee (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the right question is Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests when there are editors active on the article's talk page on a daily basis? Answer: No, and in fact it's a net negative. Semi-protected articles (and semi is, I suspect, by far the most common form of protection) are that way because there're (shall we say) lots and lots of people editing, and therefore available for handling edit requests.

So on reflection, I wonder how useful this patrolling-by-drive-by-editors actually is. Unless there's some flaw in my logic above (and I stand ready to be corrected on it), I would think that the vast majority of edit requests, if patrollers would just leave them alone, would be answered within 24 to 48 by editors active on the page. EEng 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} - noninvolved is defined in a few dictionaries, but not in Oxford. I checked to see how it's trending and it flatlined. Just curious...maybe it's just me being picky but wouldn't uninvolved editors be the better choice? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, totally —valereee (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNEVOLVED. EEng 01:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, there are 10,000+ semiprotected articles. Orinx has 2 watchers, 1 of whom visited recent edits. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And interestingly...there are ~20 current requests at semiprotected edit requests. One, at Balkans, is a month old. Eight are from today. I'm sure some patrollers come in and start with the fresh requests, figuring some of them will be easy to handle. And there doesn't seem to be any instructions for people on how to handle requests, unless it would be somewhere other than Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests_and_mandatory_copyright_attribution —valereee (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Saw the comment on the article's Talk Page, and followed the discussion here) As another possible idea (independent from the ones above), might it help to write a polite essay on the problem of drive-by patrolling editors who flip edit requests to "answered" while posting useless and/or unhelpful comments that frustrate newbies? The intended audience would be the problematic drive-by editors themselves, explaining to them why they cause more problems than they solve by their behavior (including examples). Then create a WP shortcut to that essay page (perhaps "WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL" or something more catchy), and when you see a drive-by editor make a problematic edit like that, just revert them with a polite edit summary like "Reverted good faith but unhelpful comment per WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL". Doing so would 1) remove their useless post, 2) flip the "Y" back to "N" on the answer (to attract a better answer from a more knowledgeable editor), and 3) politely direct the drive-by editor to a well written page where he or she can learn why their short-sighted and problematic edit was reverted. I suspect most of the problematic editors would learn quickly and stop doing that after a single instance; only obtuse patrollers would go right back to the Talk Page in question to combatively revert your revert of their useless post. Would instituting something like this be worthwhile, and gradually educate the community over time to stop making those kinds of unhelpful posts that mess up the edit request process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, it's not a bad idea. The problem here was that the person patrolling, who was just trying to help, probably should have just recognized the situation for what it was: a requested edit that may or may not be a reasonable change to ask for, to an article currently being heavily edited and with hundreds of active watchers. I believe the correct decision is move on, as someone brand new to this article is unlikely to be able to answer almost any edit request better than someone already working here. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng invited me here from the article talk because I was "missing the point". Conceptually, I have no problem if we want to optimize the edit request process site wide. However, the edit request response that spurred this was fine. While the request did not cite any sources, we don't need a response that "us regulars know everything there is to know, it's been discussed ad nauseaum, and consensus ain't changing." Perhaps there is something we missing before, there is new information, or this editor has a new angle? Or maybe they're just wrong or trolling. In any event, inviting them to establish consensus is a neutral response that encourages good-faith editors and does not feed any would-be trolls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I guess I don't agree that the response was fine. It felt to me like someone who decided to help out at requested edits, dropped in, made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response, and moved on to the next request. It wasn't helpful to someone making their first edit. What does 'please gain consensus before suggesting this alteration' even MEAN to someone making their first edit, much less their first edit request? That is a very high-traffic article with HUNDREDS of watchers, so there are many people available who understand the article, and answering an edit request there right now probably requires some level of familiarity or willingness to become familiar with it. This isn't some West Texas high school protected because someone keeps changing the name of the principal from Patsy to Pussy and someone's making an edit request to ask we change the stated location because they just put up a new building. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

... made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response ... Maybe, maybe not. I as a semi-regular on that page would likely have said something as neutral and avoided outright saying the OP was wrong or assume I was necessarily up-to-date on the latest sources. You do have a point of regulars throwing the word "consensus" around, which might not be accessible to a complete newbie, but neither is pointing them that a way to an FAQ or giving them the impression that consensus cannot change because I am all wise (well ... I am, but ...) While I'm not saying edit request patrolling can't be improved, I am saying that the response in this specific case was fine, even if the (speculated) rationale behind it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, believe me, I've seen regulars at a page give unfriendly and unhelpful and sometimes deliberately obtuse responses to edit requests. Let's for the sake of argument leave aside the quality of this particular response; I'm not even sure it's important. My feeling is that on a page that is currently being heavily edited and is actively watched by hundreds, an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request. Would you be more likely to agree with that? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If we move away from this particular response, I'm indifferent on any process changes. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does move away from this particular response mean, exactly? EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, it was in response to Valereee's ... leave aside the quality of this particular response—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. EEng 01:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request – Yes, though I'd put it a bit more strongly: Even a mediocre response from a regular is likely to be at least as good as any response make by someone unfamiliar with the article. I've bolded part of your post because it's pretty much what we want, though I'd add that even better than the patroller recognizing they should move on would be for the system to never take the patroller to the page at all. EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a training issue. Having the edit request just not show up at the various lists for 24 hours would likely fix the problem without instruction creep and retraining of every new patroller. There's just really very little reason for an edit request to be funneled to a random patroller before 24 hours have gone by. Any page that has an urgent change needed is likely to have multiple editors headed there or working there already. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. EEng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, sorry, by 'training issue' I just meant that trying to get patrollers to recognize when their help isn't needed means 1. adding to the instructions and 2. getting each new patroller to actually read and internalize the instructions.

If instead requested edits simply don't show up at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and wherever else they transclude to for say 24 hours, we don't have that same issue. We don't have to train patrollers. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. That's what you said and that's what I agreed was the best thing to happen. We are in violent agreement. EEng 12:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you must be reading something I said backwards, but no matter. So... shall we summarize the possible changes to the process we're contemplating, and then where do we raise this? EEng 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be not unheard of, and yes. I think we could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). My best guess would be Village pump policy; only 39 watchers visited last edits at the talk page for edit requests.

drafting proposal

Something like:

Patrollers of requested edits at semiprotected articles sometimes are the first to visit a request at even heavily-edited talk pages. Often some familiarity with the article and recent talk page discussion would allow for more helpful response, and on pages that are currently being heavily edited, there are usually many editors available to help. We’re suggesting that edit requests on talk pages that are currently being heavily edited simply not show up at at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable for 24 hours, or that they're greyed out for the first 24 hours to indicate they aren't in urgent need of help from patrollers, to give regulars at high-traffic articles a chance to respond. This will lessen the burden on patrollers at edit requests and increase the likelihood new editors’ requests will be answered by someone familiar with ongoing discussions at that article.

That's terrible, but as a draft. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng,I've given it a copyedit. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Will be distracted for the next week or so but don't let me forget to get back to this. EEng 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I still have this in my ping list. Right now I'm busy grinding someone into a grease spot. EEng 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, same —valereee (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're grinding someone into a grease spot as well? That's a side of you I haven't seen before. EEng 01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not my choice; they're pretty much forcing me to. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng is this still on the radar? —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny, I was just looking guiltily at it last night. The answer is yes, but I'm still just too distracted to concentrate on it. Don't worry, I never forget a commitment. EEng 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Not that I remember, anyway.

Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Still on my mind. EEng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The elephant never forgets. EEng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I really wish I'd followed up on this before now. Every day at T:Joe Biden we've got people swooping in out of nowhere saying the same stupid thing over and over: Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, like they've helped by saying that. I'm so sick of people doing mindless things that help not at all and waste others' time. EEng 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Silver lining: we now have another really good example of why it makes sense to propose something like this. —valereee (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

I have another thought on how to go about this, but first I need to understand something. Where do these protected edit requests come from? What I mean is, how do IP editors stumble into the place where they're told "You can't edit this article, but if you fill in this box that will make a post to the talk page, with this little template attached"? I had imagine that it pops up when they try to edit the article, but I logged out just now and I realize that, in fact, when an IP tries to edit a protected article, there is simply no edit button for them to click. So where, exactly, do these templated posts come from?

The reason I ask is that, it seems to me, the way to fix our problem is just to make is so the edit-request template is omitted from the post. In other words, we don't need options for how the request will be handled, what we need an option to make the post just a simple post, without the request template. EEng 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think these must be people who are used to being able to edit, or people sophisticated enough to realize viewing source might let you edit. If you log out and click view source, you get an edit request button. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. EEng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I saw "investigate how that template pops up". I'm thinking you may be referring to the set of templates that is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (shown when clicking "view source"). The one shown in the header after you click "submit an edit request" and are redirected to the talk page is Template:Edit extended-protected/editintro. The template popping up in the post itself is the preload: Template:Submit_an_edit_request/preload. Mobile editors can't see any of this, though, and when they click the pencil they just see "This page is protected to prevent vandalism", so how on earth they're submitting requests I don't know...

Regarding the "no consensus" replies, probably just a habit of using the userscript and giving the generic responses I think. I've been guilty of it too, but now that you mention it, I suppose it is a pretty unhelpful thing to reply with. Also worth noting Module:Protected edit request shows the banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

PR, butt in any time. :) —valereee (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, found this one today: Special:Permalink/1006579385#Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021. The request was answered in seven minutes with canned "unclear what you're asking" response to someone's first edit. —valereee (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, in my little ding-a-ling bell notification thingamajig at the top of every page, every day I skip over an open item I leave there reminding me to get back to this. Do not lose hope. EEng 18:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Sorry to ping unnecessarily! —valereee (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still on my to-do list. EEng 03:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thinking of this problem again after recent events. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, sorry, not enough coffee yet...recent events? —valereee (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

lol nevermind, REALLY not enough coffee! haha —valereee (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

examples

25 May 2021 —valereee (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Help archiving a talk page?

Hello Valereee with three Es! I'm messaging you because I noticed your activity at Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Would you mind providing assistance with starting an archive for a very long talk page? I'm trying to get more attention for the latest discussion at Talk:Ibn Arabi, but the talk page is long and hasn't been archived ever. What would you advise as the easiest method to start an archive? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @MezzoMezzo! I've set up an archives for you and tested it. A bot should be by at some point to finish archiving all the older posts. If you want to hurry the process up, you can also install User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.

For future reference, you can go to Help:Archiving (plain and simple). Copy/paste/save. —valereee (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! I hope that didn't take too much of your time. I'm a little scared of screwing the archiver bot up massively, but I guess that we all have to start somewhere. I'll give it a try. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If you don't screw something up massively now and then, you're not being WP:BOLD enough. EEng 21:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If I don't embarrass myself regularly I figure I'm not taking enough risks. Fortunately this has never been a problem for me. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo, it took seconds. :) With the plain and simple instructions, you'd almost have to be actively trying to screw something up. I wrote those instructions to give myself a simple way to insert archives. —valereee (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 31, 2021)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is: Organ (anatomy) Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Episode • International law Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI •

academic articles and citations

Your discussion elsewhere (at Talk:Jennifer Manlove ) has led me to realize that I ought to change my standard practice in listing a scientist's articles:

Currently, I've only been adding lists of most cited articles. Most researchers want to give their most recent articles, and that's significant from their point of view--they need to attract students and postdocs. I have been thinking about routinely adding such a list if it isn't present. It is not only vanity or advertisement, but relevant to someone who might happen to have heard of a scientist, to wonder what they are currently doing as well as what they have done (and that relevance to the general reader is the basic criterion I use for content)

Your question there has shown me that I ought to do it, and I shall start adding it, when it's a person who is still active. i'm not sure how many to list, or if I should include the number of citations--because if it's a 2021 publication, there won't be many until 2022. I need to experiment, and then change the standard advice that I give. Meanwhile, I think you can do whatever is reasonable in the circumstances, as long as you say why they're included. This isn't one of the areas where articles really have a rigid standard form.

I want to thank you for leading me to re-evaluate. I keep saying people here shouldn't be stubborn, and that means me also. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, lol on not being stubborn. :) What actually led me to write that article was a comment you'd made at an AfC review that said two publications with 200+ citations was the minimum needed to prove notability. I remembered that I had come across this woman maybe six months ago, couldn't find much in RS, and wasn't sure whether an h-index of 44 was high enough in sociological research, as I know it differs in various fields. When I saw your comment, I went back and checked, and sure enough she had two where she was lead/sole author with over 200 plus one where she was sole author with almost 500. I figured between that and the h-index, it was worth taking the risk even with no significant coverage in typical RS. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Oddity

Hey Valereee, I got a post on my talk page about the Princeton, Texas page. Apparently I edited the page, which I had to check the history....it was in 2013. Anyway, the user who contacted me (User:Pinecar) is asking me (and many others) to get involved in a slow-speed revert-war. I'm not sure why they care about this lawsuit and I feel there might be some personal involvement there, because why would they be so keen on getting something from 2011 deleted if they weren't?

Regardless of that, the revert-war is concerning. Even more concerning is the user getting other users involved in it. I think this requires an admin's input, so I am bringing it to you. Hopefully this doesn't instantly devolve like last time. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Neutralhomer, I've posted a request for them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page

I don't appreciate personal attacks. You are not welcome on my talk page. Please leave me alone. DN (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)